Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that good explanation. Is there a ready supply of these combined heat and power boilers within the United Kingdom or elsewhere to enable operators to fulfil the terms of the regulations?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am again indebted to the Minister for his excellent introduction to the regulations. Energy efficiency has a crucial impact on energy security across the whole of the United Kingdom. It forms part of the measures to reduce emissions to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and is a vital part of keeping energy costs down for everyone. The Minister’s department is to be commended on taking this initiative to amend the regulations to require operators to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of installations of cogeneration. Has the Minister any evidence that this was not happening previously?

I note that these regulations have been delayed past the deadline of June 2014 following consultations, and that therefore England and Wales are following the vanguard of regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. How do these regulations compare? Will these measures be applied consistently across the whole of the United Kingdom to further the attainment of the UK’s international emissions reductions targets?

The success of this measure will very much depend on the individual circumstances of each application. I note that there was extensive dialogue with affected operators during the consultation process, from which the Minister’s department has taken concerns on board in drafting these regulations. However, no details about this dialogue, or of the consultation, have been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister give further clarification by providing an assessment of the likely uptake of cogeneration?

Of the estimated 18 gigawatts of electrical cogeneration potential in the UK, only 8.4 will be built by 2020. It would be helpful to understand the quantum by which that might be improved by this measure. I wondered whether the consultation process had given his department any feel for what it might be, even through no impact assessment has been provided, on the grounds that the outcomes are difficult to quantify.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states that guidance, which has also been subject to public consultation, is being prepared by the Environment Agency. Could the Minister give the Committee any indication of when it might be made public as this omission is likely to prolong the delay before these regulations will produce benefits? Meanwhile, I am content to agree to the regulations.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this measure. I am most grateful to see that the regulations start off by allowing enforcement undertakings in the case of any infringement of pollution. I declare my interest as a farmer and I am looking at the subject from that angle. Of course, at the moment farmers who pollute or allow noxious substances to escape from their farms are subject to penalties under the common agricultural policy and the good agricultural and environmental condition standards. Farmers can be penalised by those, first; and secondly, the Environment Agency can impose penalties. Usually the idea is that a small penalty is imposed as a warning, but there is power to impose a very much heavier penalty. I am wondering whether these enforcement undertakings will work in tandem or whether they will be the opening gun of trying to enforce regulations when people are not complying properly and causing pollution or environmental damage.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Once again, the Minister has provided the Committee with an excellent introduction to, and explanation of, the regulations. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, brought up the situation regarding farming and these regulations. In case there should be any anxieties, I declare my interest as an owner of a dairy farm. However, my reading of the regulations is that of the nine classes of regulated activity to which they pertain, none applies to dairy farming—except, possibly, the water discharge activity. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify the extent to which farming is affected by these regulations, and how they might work together with the regulations under the common agricultural policy.

The Minister has clarified that these regulations introduce no new requirements and make no changes to existing offences and existing enforcement mechanisms, but merely allow the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings when they are on offer. I agree that the order is constructive in that it allows the Environment Agency greater flexibility in its approach to transgressions, and follows his department’s Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, which was initiated by the previous Labour Government. The regulations will make a positive addition to the Environment Agency’s ability to do its job well. The benefits to society include giving priority to restoration of harm ahead of criminal convictions.

The Explanatory Memorandum states, with regard to guidance, that the department will write to the Environment Agency setting out the expectation of how these enforcement undertakings will be used to ensure that enforcement is in accordance with Better Regulation principles. Will the Minister update the Committee on this progress? When does he expect that the Environment Agency will be able to publish its guidance on enforcement matters?

As the Minister explained, the Explanatory Memorandum provides no impact assessment, on the basis that the order has no impact on business or other organisations unless they fail to comply with the law. However, this was the subject of extensive discussions in the other place. The changes proposed in 2010 would have significantly reduced costs to both the Environment Agency and Natural England. As the Minister said, at the very least the order will help to free up the Environment Agency’s time.

In addition, since 2010 it is understood that consideration has been given to costs recovery. Did the Minister’s department give any consideration to recovery of the Environment Agency’s costs for monitoring and administering the new enforcement undertakings element of the order? Will he confirm that the Environment Agency can recover its costs from the order? The reply of the Minister in the other place rather missed the point to a certain extent, in his statement that it has no effect on business. It should surely be possible to produce an impact assessment on the benefits to business in this Better Regulation measure. After all, it is the aim of Better Regulation to bring benefits.

Finally, the ability to quantify the value of ecosystem services has also developed greatly since 2010. Are the Government able to give an estimate of the ecosystem services benefit of the increased compliance resulting from this change? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify his department’s approach to the benefits of this order.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked how farmers will be affected by these changes. Under the new system, farmers will be treated in the same way as any other business. The regulations will enable farmers who have a general approach to compliance to propose enforcement undertakings to the Environment Agency as part of the regime. It will form part of the way in which they can resolve issues. He has reminded me that I should probably declare an interest as a landowner.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a number of questions. He asked about guidance. I am not sure I am going to be able to satisfy him entirely today but I can say that my department will be writing to the Environment Agency, setting out the expectation of how environmental permitting enforcement undertakings will be used. It has already consulted on and will pay heed to the existing guidance on the use of environmental undertakings, which is currently being reviewed. That is probably as far as I can go today on that point.

The noble Lord asked about costs recovery. The regulations do not affect the level of inspection or enforcement. Enforcement undertakings will be an alternative to prosecution in suitable cases. Advice and guidance from the Environment Agency will remain the foundation of the environmental enforcement system. I do not think they will have an upward impact on costs at all. I think he also asked why there is no impact assessment, which I hope I explained. No impact assessment is needed for what is, in effect, a voluntary measure that will impact only on those who are not compliant and who voluntarily offer enforcement undertakings. For the delivery of this final part of the Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, we have chosen to rely on the original impact assessment from 2010.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the question I asked. I well understand the logic in both the Explanatory Memorandum and the noble Lord’s words that this has no impact and does not require any new regulation to be complied with. Nevertheless, this is a measure that will bring benefits, so I wonder whether any assessment has been made to quantify what is likely to result from the benefits of better regulation.

[Lord De Mauley]

I referred to what I think is the best estimate we can make although, as the noble Lord will understand, it is quite difficult to do because it depends on take-up. However, if I can add anything to what I have already said in my opening remarks, I will write to him.

The noble Lord also asked whether I can update the Committee on the Environment Agency’s guidance. I have already said a few words about that. The agency has its guidance, trained staff and an established approval and governance process, which includes oversight by a director-level national panel to promote consistency and the sharing of full information. On that basis, I hope that I have answered most of the questions that have been put to me, but to the extent that I have not, I will write.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, legislation on public rights of way is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. I declare an interest as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of uncontentious footpaths.

In Committee, many of the issues behind the proposals in the Bill were examined. One of these was the question of procedures and costs involved in addressing the complexities highlighted by footpaths going through gardens and farmyards and alongside private homes, with the consequential privacy and safety concerns. I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue and the stakeholder group did address it. However, the measures in the relevant passage of the Bill should alleviate most of the problems. This is not to deny that there may be the further concerns to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has drawn our attention.

In Committee, we were concerned that these measures and others should be subject to follow-up through a report to Parliament. They are, as I have said, very important measures and progress must be made. From the debate in Committee, it is clear that there are several channels of communication through which progress can be monitored and outcomes highlighted, and I am not sure whether there is a need for this proposed new clause to be in the Bill. The Minister at the time may find that a Written Statement would be entirely sufficient and satisfactory as a method of addressing this, but there may be others. The stakeholder working group can issue reports for deliberation. However, if progress is not forthcoming, then we shall certainly return to the issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I declare an interest as the owner of a farm across which there are public rights of way and, indeed, as a user of public rights of way myself.

We have considerable sympathy for those people, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford, who face problems with a public right of way that passes through their farm or garden and who feel that the system has let them down or conspired against them. Where these cases occur, people may indeed experience acute problems, but they are comparatively few and we should ensure that any changes we make to legislation are proportionate to the extent of the problem.

Rather unconventionally, I will go in reverse order, and turn first to Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I understand that the intention behind the regulation it proposes is to enable the creation of rules prescribing how local authorities must make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. We believe that the combined effect of our existing measures, which have cross-party support in both Houses, will make a significant difference and that we should not legislate further before seeing how these measures work out in practice. I will explain why that is.

There is clear agreement among stakeholders on the working group that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement the right to apply for such orders are designed to overcome this. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way. With that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it. Therefore, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests or dismiss them out of hand; they will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so on appeal to the Secretary of State.

The right to apply will be extended to land-use types other than those for agriculture, forestry and the keeping of horses—for example, to private residential gardens. The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. I suggest that guidance such as this, which has been introduced though agreement among stakeholders, is far more likely to prove successful in practice, regardless of whether it has statutory backing.

I realise that there is the further hurdle of getting an order confirmed. However, my noble friend Lady Byford quoted my words in Committee to the effect that, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the 1,257 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the 6% that did, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State.

In addition, the guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises where privacy, safety and security are a problem. In light of the guidance, authorities would have to put forward compelling reasons for not confirming an order in such circumstances.

We appreciate, and my noble friend will be the first to point out, that the numbers of orders confirmed without objections may fall under the right to apply. Each case will depend on the merits of the proposal. However, given the statistics I have outlined, we believe that the combination of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before giving these measures a chance to work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Byford]

Indeed. I am so sorry I did not include quad bikes; they are a normal sort of motor vehicle that is essential to farming in many areas. We do not happen to have one on our farm, but we do not have the sort of access being debated this afternoon. My noble friend is quite right to reflect on how important that access is.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested groups to recommend the changes to the Bill as a package, to streamline the process, and to make quicker progress with less contention and confrontation, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026, the cut-off date under the CROW Act 2000. We agree with the measures in the Bill as a balanced approach to speed up the process. We wish to retain the consensus and build on it. I am grateful to the Government for listening to our views and those of many others, reflecting on the proposals and coming forward with these further technical clarifications. We agree that the stakeholder working group must be retained following this excellent report, and its remit extended to experience more contentious, protracted issues. Indeed, in the other place, the Minister agreed to set this up.

The problem raised through Amendment 17 is one that needs addressing, but not in the context of this Bill. This is not to deny that there are issues, costs and damage created by the use of off-road all-terrain vehicles. However, they must be addressed in the context that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access, with the remaining 38% due to recreation. The damage done by this 38% cannot be denied, and the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Judd have highlighted this tonight. But 70% of byways are without drainage, and much damage can be done by farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance. The stakeholder working group must be allowed to examine the issue to find solutions first, to be arrived at through dialogue, a process more likely to result in less conflict, more compromise and thus acceptance, reducing the need for enforcement. Ministers could then make better informed decisions. These measures relating to public rights of way will bring benefit to all interests—land owners, local authorities and the public, even with their competing interests.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, and particularly inside national parks, we are addressing similar issues to a debate we had in Committee. We sympathise with genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads, encapsulated in Amendment 17 by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I have seen some of the pictures that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to. We agree that this is an issue which needs to be tackled and some means of resolution found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Deregulation Bill said as much, but also recognised that this Bill is not the right mechanism for doing so. The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is an emotive and contentious one, where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that by no means all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is by the recreational use of motor vehicles, and I broadly confirm the figures that he mentioned.

We believe that the best way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model. I am grateful to noble Lords who echoed those sentiments. That approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the stakeholder consensus on the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in this Bill form the major part. This has resulted in mutually beneficial solutions being arrived at through dialogue and negotiation.

The Government plan to set up such a motor vehicle working group, with an independent chairman, as soon as possible after the Deregulation Bill has completed its passage. My department will work with Natural England to organise a secretariat, and it will invite stakeholders with the relevant experience and expertise to join the group. We propose to invite interested organisations to put forward their suggestions for suitable members. In response to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s specific question, I say that a key principle is that the group should contain a balance of interests across all sectors. We plan to have members who can represent the interests of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national trails as well as all the different types of users of rights of way.

Within such a group, recognised professionals can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Resolutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement. Solutions will work best if based on compromise, and I have been assured by those representing the anti-vehicle groups that it is not their intention to change the legislation in relation to allowing motor vehicle trials and competitions. I welcome this approach, as I do the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised a point about access for disabled people to the countryside. This is a complex issue with many different aspects, which is why it needs to be considered carefully by a working group and fully consulted on.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked about timing. I have said that the stakeholder working group will start its work upon completion of the passage of the Bill. We will set a target time for the group to report. The original stakeholder working group took 18 months to report and I believe that a similar timeframe is realistic for this group to work to. I can confirm that a public consultation will follow the report.

While the group needs to have a clear remit, it will be invited to come up with its own terms of reference. I expect that it will look at all the issues in the round and include assessments of any economic and social benefits of the current recreational use of unsealed roads as well as an assessment of the costs and burdens. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be prepared not to press his amendment.

Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to the order. Although operating a farm, I do not have an interest to declare regarding dogs. From this side of the Committee, the Labour Party supports microchipping of dogs. I start by paying tribute to the many organisations that have tirelessly campaigned and worked for the introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs. Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home have been offering free microchipping, and the Dogs Trust has offered to meet the cost of all microchips, setting aside £6 million for the provision of microchips to vets, local authorities and housing authorities. The Kennel Club has gifted microchip scanners to every local authority in England and Wales. This is remarkable co-operation and determination from the sector to make this work. I note that several housing associations, as part of Wandsworth Borough Council, have introduced this as a tenancy condition for people on their estates.

In the 2012 consultation, the measures before us today were supported by 96% of respondents, so the regulations have been long anticipated. It was Labour’s Animal Welfare Act 2006 that provided powers to the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation to promote the welfare of vertebrate animals in England. However, it is somewhat disappointing that there appear to be questions around some of the provisions—that the Minister’s department may not have met all the various concerns of sector organisations or provided enough clarity.

The immediate concern involves the measures implicated in the Deregulation Bill. The Minister was not present in Committee on 18 November when his colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, replied to our amendments. The measure relevant to this was contained in the clauses whereby certain requirements of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sales of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 were to be repealed because of the imminent introduction of microchipping. Section 1(4)(f)(g) and (h) of the 1973 Act specifically requires that bitches are not mated before one year-old; that they do not give birth to more than six litters each; and that they do not give birth to more than one litter in any 12-month period. These provisions are designed to provide essential protections for the welfare of the breeding bitch.

In contrast, under the microchipping provisions, the information required on the database serves to notify of the details of dog and owner only, providing no information about breeding welfare, the number of litters, and so on. Does the Minister agree that, as the information objectives differ, the repeal of the requirements in that section of the 1973 Act on the grounds that they were redundant after the introduction of these microchipping regulations is entirely false? The Minister may reply that the Deregulation Bill is another matter, and we look forward to Report, when the Government’s position may be clarified. However, the first date in December for deliberation of this order was postponed due to some defect. What was that about? It does not seem to have been in relation to the data requirements of the microchip. It is entirely possible that the Minister does not want the microchip to record any details in addition to those provided for, which would then anticipate difficulties for the Government’s one-in, one-out regulation-reducing requirement, which would be a shame.

During the Committee’s proceedings on the Deregulation Bill on 18 November, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, stated that the Government had,

“decided to consult the key stakeholders”,

on the repeal, to consider whether there was,

“enough evidence to support retaining”,—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. GC 154.]

certain provisions. It appears that interested organisations are unaware of this, and I ask the Minister to provide details. I have yet to receive any information. Could the Minister clarify this before the return of the Deregulation Bill for further consideration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and questions. Let me do my best to address them. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer raised a number of questions. She started off asking which databases are approved. We will be publishing a list of the databases that inform us that they are compliant by 6 April this year, which is the date by which the microchipping database operators must comply with the requirements set down in the regulations. In answer to her second question, they will not be approved unless they can perform 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She asked a question about change of keeper. I suspect I might return to that but basically the buck stops with the new keeper. The new keepers are the people in whose interest it is to make sure that the dog is microchipped, because they are the ones who will suffer if the dog does not come back to them. I will return to that in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a number of points. He referred to the issue of dog breeding and he should be aware—I know he is—that this is not the primary purpose of these regulations, which is to allow more easy reunification of a dog and its owner when the dog has strayed. I will return to the breeders issue in a moment. The noble Lord raised issues related to the Deregulation Bill. We are looking at those issues and the record-keeping requirements on dog breeding. My colleagues dealing with the Bill are well aware of the issues, and they are considering whether any action or clarification is necessary.

[Lord Grantchester]

My anxiety is raised because the Minister at the time mentioned a consultation and yet the various sector bodies in the industry seem to be unaware of that consultation.

[Lord De Mauley]

I understand that. I will return to him in writing on that particular point.

Natural Environment

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate, covering many aspects of our modern environment and touching on the policies of many government departments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing it and declare my interest as a farmer, and my previous experiences of being involved along the food supply chain with various organisations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was quite right to frame the debate around climate change. In the UK, the most significant impacts of climate change are likely to be further increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather, heat waves and drought, as well as storms and flooding. How we respond and adapt to this is critical. The sixth annual report to Parliament of the Committee on Climate Change scoped out the progress towards meeting carbon budgets and emission reduction targets, and reflected on the progress across the main government departments of energy, local government, transport, business and the environment, as well as in the Treasury and the devolved Administrations. This throws up a clear challenge for joined-up action and co-ordination. The warning is clear: the committee considers that the underlying pace of emissions reduction, allowing for the impacts of the recession through the first carbon budget period and in 2013, is insufficient to meet future carbon targets and budgets.

Meeting the legislated fourth carbon budget in the 2020s to reduce emissions by a further 31%—that is, by 50% from the 1990 levels—will require further strengthening of policies, which speakers throughout the debate have highlighted. On the energy front, there are the policies for energy efficiency and power decarbonisation; on the transport side, it is those for the electrification of transport; on local government policies, they are for infrastructure and green spaces; and on Treasury policies, they are for financial incentives across other departments’ policies.

In the Minister’s own Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is therefore extremely disappointing that the Government’s failure to get to grips with the increasing threat of climate change is putting more homes at risk from flooding. I am sure that the Minister will be regretting the previous Secretary of State’s removal of “preparing for and responding to flood risk” from the department’s list of priorities and the consequential ideological cutting of the budget. Since 2010, the Government have cut the Environment Agency’s flood defence budget by £138 million, a 21% reduction. It was especially instructive to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about his experiences at the Environment Agency.

The next Labour Government will reinstate flood protection as a core departmental responsibility and establish an independent national infrastructure commission to identify the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs, including on flood defences. The next Labour Government will also introduce a new national adaptation plan across government to ensure that all sectors of the economy are adapting to climate change. This will build on the work on the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change, whose 2014 report underlined the importance of infrastructure resilience, the risks to businesses, well-being and public health, and emergency planning—especially in this area of flood risk.

The Government should introduce without further delay the Flood and Water Management Act’s provisions to require sustainable drainage in new development, as recommended by the Pitt review. They should also now evaluate whether local flood risk management arrangements are in place across the country, in line with this review. The adaptation sub-committee found that some funding provided by Defra to lead local flood authorities is being diverted to other council services. Statutory local flood-risk management strategies have yet to be published in many areas. Will the Minister initiate and publish an assessment on local action plans? Does he also regret the abolition of the Cabinet committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forums? In addition, does he agree that the Government should bring forward the reform of the water abstraction regime to encourage water efficiency and protect the environment?

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, raised the issue of air quality, which was further taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Air pollution in our towns and cities causes 29,000 people in the UK to die prematurely. Rather than simply devolving the responsibility to local authorities, making them liable to million-pound fines for exceeding EU air pollution limits, what are the Government doing to devolve the power to local authorities willing to take action against this public health crisis?

The next Labour Government will deliver a national framework for low emission zones to enable local authorities to tackle the problem by encouraging cleaner, greener and less polluting vehicles. Currently there is no such framework, despite the majority of councils calling for one. The next Labour Government will devolve the power, not just the responsibility, to take action against air pollution to local authorities. Can the Minister update the House on discussions with the EU Commission and other Governments to ensure that the EU delivers a widely reformed, tougher clean air package?

Transport-vehicle emissions are clearly critical in this regard. I certainly enjoyed the maiden contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and hearing of his experiences drafting EU emissions standards, which I agree should not be set so that they damage British interests. The theme of further encouragement of good British innovation and development was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.

Biodiversity and the importance of trees and wildlife were also key themes throughout the debate. Again, clearly the Minister’s department has struggled to provide the required leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, highlighted the role of trees. Can the Minister update the House on the protections that his Government are now taking following the importation last year of diseased stock with ash dieback?

On wildlife protection, can the Minister update the House on legislation on the control of trade in endangered species? It is now nearly a year since his department conducted consultations. Does the Minister have any timing for when his department will bring forward measures to combat wildlife crime? Does his department have any plan to publish the report of the National Wildlife Crime Unit?

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was keen to understand how cuts at Defra have undermined key services. He mentioned footpaths and green spaces. With important considerations of environmental concerns across government departments, how is the Minister’s department co-ordinating scarce resources so that the public purse can be leveraged to meet important considerations, as has been debated today?

Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, in introducing these regulations I disclose an interest as owner of a stretch of a tributary of the River Thames and an interest in a lake used—among other things—for fishing.

Diseases and parasites of fish in the wild can, of course, adversely impact fish stocks. Non-native invasive fish species also pose a significant threat to native species through predation and competition as well as being potential carriers of diseases and pests, with additional potential impacts on the biodiversity of habitats. These present risks to the environment and to commercial and recreational fishery waters, so the stocking of fish into inland waters for recreational angling and other purposes has to be balanced with appropriate safeguards for aquatic environments.

Under these regulations a new permitting scheme will enable the regulatory body and the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish in our rivers, lakes and waterways. This will reduce burdens on the angling and freshwater fisheries sector and help promote growth in the rural economy. The legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament, will be made under Section 232 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. These regulations would repeal Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 in relation to England. We will shortly also modify the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014 so that its scope excludes inland waters, to prevent the duplication of legislation.

The proposed regulations introduce a new permitting scheme which would replace the existing legal requirements to obtain the consent of the Environment Agency for each separate introduction of any fish into inland waters, and to obtain a licence for the keeping and release of non-native fish in inland waters. These regulations would make it an offence to keep fish or introduce fish other than in accordance with a single permit granted by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will also have the power to impose conditions on the permits relating to matters such as the number of fish introduced and minimising the risk of fish escaping from inland waters.

The new permitting scheme will enable the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish. Under this proposal, species that are high-risk are given greater scrutiny while the movement of low-risk species will be allowed to take place more freely. This is a significant improvement on the current system. The Environment Agency will also be able to revoke and vary permits if information comes to light that changes the level of risk the fish pose to the environment. The regulations also provide more effective enforcement powers to enable the Environment Agency to remove illegal non-native fish where they are found in rivers, lakes and waterways.

The Government consulted on these proposals both in 2009 and as part of the water and marine-themed Red Tape Challenge in 2012. As explained in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, most respondents supported the proposals. These regulations would produce a small annual saving for industry and additional savings for the Environment Agency.

The Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015 will also apply to the Border Esk region of Scotland. Freshwater fisheries are best managed on a river basin catchment basis, and England’s Environment Agency has managed fisheries in the Border Esk region for many years. Under similar arrangements, Scotland manages freshwater fisheries in the River Tweed catchment, which is shared with England. The Scottish Government are fully aware of these regulations, which maintain this policy approach, and are in total support of them.

In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in these regulations will provide a more efficient and risk-based way of protecting local fisheries and biodiversity. They will reduce the regulatory burdens on the angling and fish trade industry. To this end, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee today. I declare my interests as a farmer in Cheshire—the River Weaver defines the farm’s boundary on one side—and as a co-owner of a holiday home in south-west Scotland with fishing rights, although I do not personally partake in the catching of little fishes. I know that there have been many expressions of anxiety concerning the Scottish Government’s upheaval of the governance and jurisdiction structure of inland fishing in Scotland, but that is not a subject for debate today.

Nevertheless, as far as these regulations are concerned, it is good to see that co-operation between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliament is healthy and continuing. As the Minister stated, these regulations replace the current controls on placing fish into inland waters with a new permitting system, requiring all introductions and subsequent keeping of fish to be permitted by the Environment Agency. Transporting fish for introduction must also be permitted. The main objective should be achieved, which is to support the economic value and growth of the angling sector while ensuring adequate risk-based protection for the aquatic environment from risks associated with the use of invasive non-native fish species. Such high-risk species will be given greater scrutiny, while low-risk fish movements will be allowed to take place, as the noble Lord said, much more freely, albeit against the background of full disease control and other measures the Environment Agency will rightly be concerned with. That a permit is not necessarily set in stone for all time but will run until varied is surely the right approach.

Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee inquired why the department had taken so much time since the public consultation concluded in March 2010 to come forward with these quite modest and uncontroversial regulations. It is interesting that the answer was that the election in 2010 gave rise to the regulations having to be fully evaluated against the new Government’s priorities, and that further delay then flowed from the requirement to reconsult under the water and marine Red Tape Challenge initiative. It is very fortunate that the noble Lord brings these regulations before the Committee today, a mere few months before maybe further inevitable delay as a result of the much anticipated change of Government at the general election next May.

I ask the Minister to provide comfort to the Committee. Is he confident that, following this change in licensing, there are adequate plans in place to deal with any outbreak, emerging disease or damage that could result from any eventuality in the future? Are there enough resources to remove any introduction from the environment affected and to tackle any problems resultant from illegitimate action or trade? I note that one of the contentions expressed in the consultation was that this new scheme might lead to an increase in illegal activity.

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, these are the regulations we have all been waiting for. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the instrument before the Committee concerning the amendments to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013.

From this side of the Committee, we support these changes to the SIP regulations. As the Minister has explained, their purpose is to bring Ofwat’s powers to include conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence into line with those which exist for a water or sewerage undertaker. With this inclusion, Ofwat is able to refer any disputes over price determinations to the Competition and Markets Authority on request by the licensed IP, in the same way that a water or sewerage undertaker already can. In the absence of such conditions, as the Minister said, the only route of challenge against an Ofwat determination would be by an application for judicial review on a point of law—a costly and time-consuming activity.

The SIP amendment regulations concern infrastructure providers in their activity of financing and delivering large and complex projects, most notably the Thames tideway tunnel. The SIP regulations are entirely sensible. The public consultation recently undertaken produced the five responses to which the noble Lord referred. The purpose of the consultation was not to review the merits of the tunnel but to consider amendments to the SIP regulations. Although most of the points raised were on aspects of the tunnel project itself, and not relevant to the consultation, nevertheless the respondents were supportive of the draft SIP amendment regulations on the grounds that the availability of an appeal route in common with other water industry companies will help lower perceptions of project risk and keep the cost of procuring a proposed IP as low as possible. It would so remove a distinct disincentive to invest and enable any potential future disputes to be resolved promptly.

I am sure that the use of the CMA to adjudicate will be helpful in convincing consumers that the decisions reached have their best interests at heart. The removal of an unnecessarily burdensome process for the appeals should also help to deliver lower costs for consumers. I see no reason to delay further the Committee’s agreement to these regulations.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.

Peatlands

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on securing and introducing this debate. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire in receipt of EU funding, but the farm has no peat.

The noble Lord has highlighted the importance and significance of peatlands in the UK, covering about 9.5% of the land area, and from which around 70% of all drinking water is derived, and surface water from upland catchments is generally peat dominated. In the Peak District, my area of northern England, there are 55 reservoirs providing water to major conurbations to the east and west. Peatlands are significant natural carbon stores, and in England hold an estimated 140 million tonnes of carbon, worth billions of pounds. Furthermore, nearly 40% of the upland peat areas in England are designated as sites of special scientific interest.

Peatlands’ importance is highlighted by Professor Joseph Holden of the University of Leeds, who called peatlands the “Amazon of the UK”. Yet, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said regarding the horticultural aspects of peat, our peatlands have been degraded to such an extent that, in the words of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, only around 4% of England’s deep peat is in a sufficiently good condition to still be actively forming peat.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke on the effectiveness of restoration, even though the timescales can be significantly long. All speakers have highlighted the benefits to society of restoration, which clearly outweigh the costs. Achim Steiner, the executive director of the UN Environment Programme, has been quoted as saying:

“The restoration of peatlands is a low hanging fruit, and among the most cost-effective options for mitigating climate change”.

Against this yardstick, the Government have made very little progress. It will be two years next February since the Government published their response to the report of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. Peatland habitats continue to degrade and to reduce water quality regulation services.

Since the recent change in Secretary of State, flooding has needed to be restored as a key priority of Defra, yet iconic species continue to decline and the rate of release of CO₂ stored in England’s upland peat is increasing. The current scale of restoration, although worthwhile and important, has to be improved upon by a strategic step change resulting from clear improvements that the Government need to make.

The Adaptation Sub-Committee has highlighted that two-thirds of upland peat is still without a management plan. While much good work has been undertaken by several NGOs and funds have been leveraged up with contributions from water utilities, the Government have failed to achieve widespread buy-in from private landowners. While some £27 million has been paid to farmers and landowners to take up moorland restoration under the higher level scheme since 2007, will the Minister outline what new measures under the greening proposals the Government will be focusing on? Even now, large areas designated as SSSI continue to burn peat and heather. Surely there needs to be better enforcement of existing protocols. Perhaps this could be improved upon by the wide range of NGOs that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, spoke of today.

In an earlier debate, my noble friend Lord Knight highlighted the issue of water management in the uplands and asked the Minister what costs could be avoided if the water storage and purification provided by peatlands were to be restored. I hope that the Minister will be able now to give us a clearer answer. This would underline the target and set clear goals through the England biodiversity strategy of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020 for climate change mitigation. The water companies could benchmark their activities against this figure, and provide data and be informative in the debate on reducing greenhouse gases under the UK’s targets for emissions reduction. Here I welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Will the Minister update the Committee on the percentage of deep peat that is currently in a degraded condition, and is that figure improving?

How will the newly announced environmental stewardship schemes be used to restore peatlands, address the continuing burning, especially by shoots on private estates, reduce the amount of inappropriate grazing, and encourage the blocking of “grips” and gullies to reduce water run-off? Does the Minister agree that the restoration of peatland ecosystems should now be a more important priority in his department? From this side of the Committee, Labour will ensure that investment by water companies in peatland increases in line with their resilience duty under the newly passed Water Act 2014. Will the Ofwat determinations show any increase in investment in upland restoration?

Recent debates have also highlighted that effective restoration is a key factor in future flood mitigation planning. What progress has been made in developing a national plan for restoration, and when is it likely to be published? What measures is the noble Lord’s department bringing forward to extend the uptake of management plans, especially through improving incentives to landowners?

Labour will follow the example of the successful use of payments for ecosystem services and regulation to improve flood management, such as in the Pumlumon Project in Montgomeryshire. This highlights that co-ordination has to be encouraged across a wider area. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, spoke of similar experiences provided by the Moorland Forum in Scotland.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, highlighted the important focus provided by the Peatland Carbon Code. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke of the need to utilise these benefits in carbon accounting. Labour will provide the development of a Peatland Carbon Code to facilitate further private investment in restoration and build on the existing incentives for environmental stewardship schemes and catchment-scale management plans. We see advantages in the long-term aim to have a system in place whereby landowners and managers can offer up for sponsorship the carbon and other benefits of peatland restoration to businesses that are interested in helping to deliver action against climate change and other environmental benefits.

A very important development to capture long-term improvements could come through implementing conservation covenants to future public funding that will be attached to land. While it seems that this introduction may be captured only through new primary legislation—and we all know how difficult it can be to secure that—could the Minister inform the House what plans his department may have considered to capture in large measure the benefits of attaching such conditions of positive action to management behaviour through other measures that the Government could take? That and other measures need to be put in place with utmost urgency.

EU: Counting the Cost of Food Waste (EUC Report)

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I welcome the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has presented so eloquently to the House. It is very important. Food waste has many impacts throughout the food chain, with economic, environmental and social implications. Perhaps as much as a third of all food grown is wasted, from the field to the dinner plate. I declare my interest as a dairy farmer, with experience of the processing and manufacturing of ingredients as well as food retailing.

In the report, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, challenged the Government on the hierarchy of waste, suggesting that human food waste be channelled into animal feed. This was echoed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jenkin and Lady Byford. While I recognise the good intentions behind these remarks, the fact is that the regulations covering such recycling arose out of lessons learnt from previous disasters. I urge the Government to proceed extremely carefully so that unnecessary risks with animal health are not taken.

The report identifies that waste is now a major public policy issue that must be addressed at the levels of primary production, processing, manufacturing and retailing, as well as within the household. The committee is to be congratulated on the clear focus of the report. There is so much content to discuss that it is difficult to do it justice in the time available.

The report is correct to point out that the challenge of agreeing adequate definitions in order to set parameters within which to monitor waste in itself highlights the issue and encourages response measures. The difficulties that impinge on the quality of available data at all levels underline that voluntary action is the best course and that waste monitoring and data collection must be effectively resourced across the EU.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is correct to point out that companies also have the responsibility to provide environmental reports with their company results. It is also imperative that the challenges posed by this report are answered with aspirational targets set at EU level to focus member states’ attention and co-ordination.

The report detected no systematic attempt across the European Commission to assess the impact of its policies on food waste. It recommended the establishment of a cross-departmental working group on the issue. The Government did not give a very adequate response to these remarks. Has the Minister any initiative to report in this respect? As the new CAP measures are finally agreed, what are the Government doing to encourage the new European Commission to publish a five-year strategy on food waste prevention and to address many of the issues raised throughout the inquiry, to ensure that best practice identified in one member state can be translated into effective action elsewhere?

The Government’s response to the report referred to the new rural development programme and how it could be used to accelerate research under the agricultural technologies strategy. However, can the Minister confirm whether increasing efficiency, which could well be interpreted in ways that could include waste reduction, is allowable under CAP farm support generally and will not be barred as constituting direct production support? There could well be an opportunity here to reduce losses and the disconnect up the food supply chain.

Within the UK, the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—has an invaluable role and has been identified by many speakers tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, highlighted that, within the UK, there is a high risk of a false economy if the cuts to WRAP funding to support waste prevention ultimately lead to resource inefficiency in terms of economic costs to businesses and households and environmental costs for greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy consumption. Although the Government’s response highlighted the good work they are undertaking, in conjunction with WRAP, in encouraging best practice in recycling and working with councils to make food recycling more convenient for residents, does the Minister agree that cutting funding, without assessing the impact, will send out completely the wrong signal and undermine progress? Although the Government can identify areas in which to step back, is this not one where it is far from clear that businesses are better placed to act? Does the Minister identify waste prevention as revealing clear market failure?

The Government’s response welcomed the committee’s support for the Groceries Supply Code of Practice and the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The response clarified that the jurisdiction of the GCA extends only to direct suppliers to the large retailers, and this was mentioned tonight by my noble friend Lord Whitty. However, it is often the late cancellation of orders, especially in the fresh produce sector, where suppliers are most critical of the unfair relationship with retailers. Might it not be an aspect of the adjudicator’s role to monitor this sort of action which, even if compensated by the retailer, could have a large impact on waste prevention?

The report identifies the excellent progress made by retailers reducing unnecessary packaging and co-ordinating action through the Courtauld commitment. My noble friend Lord Whitty underlined that retailers can assume a far greater responsibility for the prevention of food waste in the chain as well as in the home. Retailers must ensure that incentives and promotions offered to consumers do not transfer waste from the store to the household.

The report suggests, as have speakers throughout tonight’s debate, that food labelling remains confusing to consumers. Would the Minister agree that the food information for consumers regulation remains work in progress and in urgent need of clarification and communication to the consumer? What plan does the Minister’s department have to take this forward? Does he agree that it is confusing that there is still a lack of adoption of the agreed terms?

The report has clearly identified that there is much to be achieved and it provides a critical assessment of the milestones ahead. It is to be commended on its identification of challenges to policy implementation, to which the EU and member states must respond. The members of the committee who have spoken tonight bear testament to the importance of the inquiry for the House’s consideration.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

9: Clause 16, page 10, line 38, leave out subsection (1)

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the relevant clause before us amends Part 3 of the Clean Air Act 1993; these provisions relate to smoke control areas. The Act requires the Secretary of State to publish lists of authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces that can be used in smoke control areas. Currently, this is done through regulations that are updated every six months. Clause 16 removes the need to issue regulations, replacing them with online lists to be published by the Secretary of State, which will be revised,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable after any change is made”.

The Secretary of State must keep an up-to-date and easily accessible authorised list on the gov.uk website.

This is a probing amendment. Will the Minister confirm that the criteria for selecting which fuels are considered safe and clean enough to be used will not change? If the clause is designed purely to speed up this process, it is one that we would thereby support. It should not be meant to change the terms or processes for the selection of fuels. It is important that it is made absolutely clear to people that this provision is about speeding things up, as opposed to making any back-door changes to which fuels could be used. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Clean Air Act, which was first introduced to combat the smogs of the 1950s, designates smoke control areas within which it is an offence to emit smoke unless using authorised fuels and/or exempted appliances. Clause 16 amends the procedure by which the Secretary of State specifies authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces. They are currently specified by way of six-monthly statutory instruments, as the noble Lord explained. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to specify the products by publication of a list on the Defra smoke control web pages instead. The list will be published on a monthly basis and therefore reduce the delay that businesses and consumers currently face when new products are brought on to the market. The Act provides local authorities with powers to designate smoke control areas, within which it is an offence if smoke is emitted from a building’s chimney unless an authorised fuel or exempt appliance is being used. It is also an offence under the Act to acquire or sell an unauthorised fuel for use in a smoke control area.

The Secretary of State currently has the power under the Clean Air Act 1993 to exempt fireplaces by order and to authorise fuels by regulations, if she is satisfied that such products can be used without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke. Following assessment by technical experts to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, the authorised fuels and exempt appliances are specified in statutory instruments which are made every six months. Under the current system, manufacturers face a delay of up to eight months between that assessment and bringing new fuels and fireplaces on to the market because they have to wait for that legislation to be made.

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I confirm that the amendment made by this clause will not change the technical standards that products have to meet to be specified. Applicants will still be required to prove via testing that their products are capable of being used without producing any—or any substantial—quantity of smoke, thus keeping the inherent safeguards for air quality. The technical experts who currently provide advice with regard to the statutory instruments will continue to assess test results and provide recommendations to government with regard to the suitability of products for use in smoke control areas.

The details of specified products in the legislation are highly technical. The authorised fuel schedules are defined in technical terms covering matters such as the composition of the fuels, the manufacturing process, the shape of the fuels and their weight and sulphur content. Similarly, the exempted fireplaces schedules contain highly technical conditions of exemption relating to how individual fireplaces should be used and what fuels should be used in them to qualify for exemption.

It is worth noting that my department is not aware of the smoke control statutory instruments, which have been issued since 1957 and biannually since 1970, having been debated in Parliament on any occasion. The lists published on the internet will be subject to defined and robust audit procedures to ensure the accuracy of the data entered. These will include checks being undertaken and the lists being signed off by senior, responsible Defra staff. The process will enable specified product lists to be updated on a monthly basis.

In addition to including the same level of detail as the statutory instruments, the lists of specified products on the internet will also indicate the dates of new product specifications and of any variations or withdrawals. This is an improvement on the current system, where it would be necessary to compare lengthy SIs for consumers and local authorities to identify any changes. Therefore, there is an element of safeguarding for consumers as it will ensure that there is legal certainty with respect to which products may or may not be used at any given time. Members of the public without access to the internet will be able to request paper copies of the lists from my department.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee initially expressed concern over the move from a legislative to an administrative process. However, I understand that it now finds the explanation provided by the Government with regard to the procedures for specifying products and the levels of control that will be in place sufficiently compelling in favour of the amendment—that is, the amendment made by the clause rather than the noble Lord’s amendment. It has, however, requested assurance that adequate steps will be taken to ensure that persons who have been lawfully using specified products do not end up inadvertently committing offences as a result of specifications being withdrawn. The Government would not want to create a situation in which people could inadvertently end up being in breach of the law.

A decision to withdraw an approval may take place only if evidence demonstrating that a product is not eligible for use in a smoke control area comes to light. Defra has advised that it is not aware of any specified products ever having been removed from the lists previously. Based on this information, while it is possible that a specified product may need to be withdrawn, it would be highly unusual. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the answer to that is that the inclusion in the published list will be information that the public need. They certainly can contact my department. Ultimately, it would remain subject to judicial review if it ever needed to come to that. The information will be public. All that will happen is that we will streamline the process so as not to clog up my noble friend’s committee.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me those assurances and for his comprehensive assessment of the clauses in the Bill. I am very pleased that, from his assurances, the technical standards will continue to be monitored. On this occasion, I am happy to comply with the pleadings of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

13: Before Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Rights of way: annual report
The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report on— (a) the implementation of the changes introduced by sections 21 to 27; and(b) the effectiveness of the changes introduced by sections 21 to 27,and must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, public right-of-way legislation is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. Looking around the Committee today, I notice that there may well be previous Ministers of Agriculture in the Room who put some of this legislation through. It all builds into an important picture that needs some clarity, and I am very pleased that certain aspects of this are in this Deregulation Bill. They cover important aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Highways Act 1980 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, building on the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

I declare my interest from the register as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of footpaths. These are not controversial; they are intermittently walked and do not cause disruption to farming operations. However, across the country the situation is considerably less clear. Under the 1949 Act, local authorities are required to produce a definitive map and statement of public rights of way. This is taking some time and continues, such that in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 a cut-off date of 2026 was introduced, after which routes pre-existing 1949 cannot be added to the definitive map.

Not only is the process of registration slow and complex, certain elements of the legislation have yet to be implemented and are considered to be flawed. In 2008 a stakeholder working group was set up by Natural England with membership drawn up from public access user groups and land management and business interests, including farming, and the local authorities. In 2010 it produced the Stepping Forward report, which proposed the changes that we are discussing today around the procedures introduced in the various legislation.

The stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested parties to recommend these changes as a package, to streamline the process and to make quicker progress, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026. Some of the recommendations will no doubt help farmers to manage access safely, others will help to bring clarity to user groups and a large number will aid local authorities in bringing forward proposals to reduce confrontation and red tape. The approach from these Benches is to retain this consensus and build on it. The stakeholder working group is still continuing and, with these proposals agreed and implemented through the Bill, it can press forward in addressing further problems and bring these forward as quickly as possible.

Meanwhile, there is the task of following up on these proposals. The amendment before the Committee today is to do just this and annually publish a report on how effective this process has now become, how much quicker applications have become to deal with and any unforeseen issues that have arisen. The whole of Schedule 7 defines the new speedier and more streamlined process, but will it find snags? For example, paragraphs 4 to 6 of the schedule change the procedure for initiating action in the magistrate’s court. That procedure has charges applied to it, and these charges for initiating court action have increased substantially. Will this become a deterrent to the effective working of this provision?

Clause 26 opens the way for full cost recovery from a landowner seeking an order. The effect will need to be carefully monitored. Clause 24 revisits the CROW Act 2000 to correct those perceived flaws. It is important that the impact of this so-called right to apply for orders, both on local authority workloads and on the network itself, is properly monitored. The amendment would enable this and other measures to be monitored and their operations made transparent to ensure that the stakeholder working group is working on the right track.

One effect of the amendment would be to continue to build the esteem of the stakeholder working group and encourage it to continue trying to seek consensus on the most controversial aspects of our rights of way. It should be an important aid to the Minister in communicating the effectiveness of the process to draw up a definitive map and statement of public rights of way, and he should welcome it. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, before I start, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I should declare an interest in that I am the owner of land over which pass public rights of way.

Perhaps I may also say by way of preamble that the rights of way reforms package, of which Clauses 21 to 27 will form the basis, is founded on the recommendations of the independently chaired stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. The group consists of 15 members—five from each of the key sectors: local authorities, landowners and rights of way users. It contains members of the Ramblers, the British Horse Society, the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association. I may say a bit more about that in a debate on a later group of amendments.

Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, seeks to ensure that the Government monitor the success or otherwise of the rights of way reform package after implementation. That is a worthy objective and one with which I have no disagreement. That is why the Government have already given a commitment that they will arrange for the stakeholder working group to carry out a review. We said in the other place during the Committee stage that,

“the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of the review panel, as was set out in another of the group’s proposals. The panel will be able to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date”.—[Official Report, Commons, Deregulation Bill Committee, 6/3/14; col. 238.]

While it is important to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the rights of way clauses, it seems ironic to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on government and, in turn, on local authorities the statutory burden of making a formal report to Parliament. The additional bureaucracy that such a formal reporting mechanism would create runs contrary to the aims of this Bill. Indeed, the proposal runs contrary to the recommendations of the stakeholder working group itself. In its proposal 21, the group said:

“A stakeholder review panel should be constituted after implementation of the Group’s proposals to review progress with recording or protecting useful or potentially useful pre-1949 rights of way before the cut-off”.

Since the stakeholder working group has shown itself to be so effective in working together to develop solutions, I suggest that it would be wrong not to entrust the group with advising on the most appropriate mechanism for carrying out a review of the reforms. It is in the interests of each of the stakeholders on the group that they do so. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for certain of those clarifications but I should like to press him on the further work of the stakeholder working group. While the amendment limits the annual assessment to a report on the measures in the Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify any further aspects of this group and how he sees further progress being made. Having confirmed that it will continue, does he believe that its membership is sufficiently widely drawn to tackle more controversial aspects, and will the group be encouraged to come forward with proposals in a timely manner? Even though this is a long way ahead, we are aware of the urgency to make progress, as we will see in debates on further amendments that will be coming up shortly. It would be extremely interesting to hear how the working group may approach the more controversial aspects. The noble Lord should be mindful that we may well return to this at a later date, having considered further debate on the amendments. We reserve judgment about how appropriate it is that the Deregulation Bill should include a proposal to monitor its work going forward.

[Lord De Mauley]

I think that I have explained that the stakeholder working group is quite broadly constituted in its membership. It has tackled some pretty contentious issues successfully, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that. In terms of how it will work as this goes forward, once all the rights of way reforms have been put in place in both primary and secondary legislation, that group can start preparing a review. Of course, any review by that group will be published by Defra and put on its website. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his further clarifications. While it is a complex and controversial area that we may revisit at a later stage, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a patron of Friends of the Lake District and vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks, but what I want to say now is very personal. If I have come to any conclusion working in those areas, it is that the management of the countryside and the enjoyment of it by the maximum possible number of people, which entails access, is best handled by what both the noble Lords, Lord Plumb and Lord Greaves, were emphasising: reasonableness and common sense. There has to be give and take, and compromise. What matters is that everyone sees clearly that it is about reaching sensible arrangements between people with their own needs for privacy, as I have. The coast-to-coast cycle track goes down a lane beside my house right by the window of one of my rooms—it is not a bathroom; it is a study—so I understand that there are issues in this area, but it is handled sensibly. It is a long-established lane going way back into history before most of the cottages and hamlets were built. Reaching consensus is therefore terribly important.

We have had a special working group working in this area and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly said, we do not want to start unpicking it because we just do not know what that might lead to. The amendments that have been put forward have a lot in them to be taken very seriously. It is not at all a matter of dismissing them out of hand; rather, it is about listening to those arguments and seeing how we can meet them in that context of reasonableness and common sense. I say to those who have tabled these amendments in good faith—and I have a lot of respect for some of them—that, in the Scottish phrase in law, the case is not proven. However, it is a case that cannot just be dismissed; it should be taken seriously and, if it were ever to be pursued, it would be good if it had more hard statistical evidence at its disposal. It is not just about principles; it is about what, in quantitative terms, the effect of all this is and how big a problem it really is.

[Lord Grantchester]

I very much endorse the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that this group of clauses should be viewed as a package. As all noble Lords have expressed, all these amendments are indeed paved with good intentions. However, they are not completely uncontroversial. The existing provisions are carefully balanced, but presumptions would destroy that balance. Existing legislation already allows for many of the changes. Existing legislation already provides for the diversion of paths out of gardens and farmyards. These changes can and do happen all the time. I am told that, of 1,257 diversion orders that have reached a conclusion in the past three years, 94% did not attract objections. There is a lot of sense in the right to apply being allowed to bed in in the provisions put forward by the stakeholder working group and being properly monitored before there is any amendment to the standard procedures for closing and diverging footpaths.

Amendments 17 and 18 are also interesting in that they bring forward further provisions and further work on the stakeholder working group. I understand that the provisions in Amendment 17 are already agreed in draft by the stakeholder working group and Defra.

Amendment 18 includes elements agreed at the stakeholder working group but go a long way further where the stakeholder group is not agreed. For that reason alone, we would hesitate to endorse that amendment. Specifically, I understand that it is possible to apply to erect gates on restricted byways in line with existing provisions for their erection on footpaths and bridleways, and this is the element that was agreed by the working group. These amendments go somewhat further than the working group proposed by introducing a whole lot of new purposes for which gates and styles may be erected on public rights of way of all kinds. For those reasons we would hesitate to endorse the amendments, although we well recognise the basis on which they have been tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I support Amendment 19 concerning the time limit. We live in a very crowded island and I believe that England is the fifth most densely populated country in the world. There is huge competition for land use across a wide spectrum of activities, and the planning system is a very obvious example of where the use of land is democratically decided upon. It seems to me that the simplest way to avoid disputes is to have certainty and a clear decision-making process that adjudicates clearly and fairly with clear time limits so that everyone knows where they stand as soon as possible.

The whole point about a Section 31 deposit of a map and statement by a farmer is to create certainty so that the householder, the farmer or the landowner and the public know what is permissible and what is not. With a Section 31 deposit there is usually a conversation between the farmer and the highway authority. The local highway authority agrees the deposit of the maps, so the farmer and the highway authority are in agreement in saying, “This is the situation regarding rights of way on this land”. That clarity is really important to all concerned, including the general public.

A Section 31 deposit is also really important to landowners, among whom I include myself and the son of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I welcome most people on to my land. There are people who walk all over it, and kids cycle across the fields and go into the woods. In fact, I get into trouble because they tend to cycle around badger setts, which brings somebody in authority down on my head for allowing that to happen. I am very happy to allow local people to use the land. Sometimes I have to interfere and say, “Thou shall not do this or that”, but on the whole I am very relaxed about it. I am happy to do that provided they are not creating a statutory right—that is, getting rights that are going to infringe any future use of that land because they are establishing rights of way. That is a really important factor. If people can come along and contest a Section 31 deposit of a map and statement several years afterwards, that is completely wrong, and I think that the general public and the walking public will suffer as a result. It may be that a one-year time limit before anyone can object is too short. I would probably have gone for two or maybe even three years. However, it is important that we have some time limit in this whole area.

The other amendment in this group to which I want to refer is Amendment 22. I had slight sympathy for Amendment 20, concerning costs being made against spurious claims, but it is almost impossible for an applicant to know in advance whether their claim is spurious. Therefore, the way to deal with it is to ensure that the proposed statements are true. That is a very good idea. I do not believe that the minor cost involved is a good reason to bypass this reasonable check on a process. The statement needs to be treated as though it has been made in a court of law, even if in reality it has been garnered around a kitchen table in a very relaxed atmosphere with, quite likely, the witness being led in a very unbarrister-like manner by whichever side happens to be taking the statement. It could be being taken on behalf of the Ramblers or on behalf of the landowner, but having to sign a statement of truth is sufficient to ensure that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That would be a very good thing.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the proposals in the Bill will make great progress on many aspects and procedures covering rights of way legislation. We welcome this further debate on many aspects that the stakeholder working group raised. While we have addressed and debated some of them, there is as yet no agreement and it may be a long way off. However, we have welcomed the debate and look forward to further progress after these provisions have been enacted.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendments 19 to 22 seek to introduce measures that reflect the valid concerns of landowners and farmers about the impact that claims for rights of way can have on their businesses, and about the costs of dealing with such claims during due legal process.

I am aware that there are concerns about the potential effect on some landowners of applications to record a right of way, particularly about multiple applications in an area or even on a single property. An application fee has been suggested as a solution to this issue. However, the introduction of such a fee or charge would be highly contentious. Ministers specifically asked the rights of way stakeholder working group to look at the impact of applications to record a public right of way, particularly at multiple applications, and what measures, including a fee or charge for an application, might be introduced to mitigate this perceived problem. The group agreed to report back to Ministers in the following terms:

“The problem of multiple applications could be an acute one in some cases but it is not widespread and there is little prospect of coming up with a solution, particularly on application charges, on which the full range of stakeholders could agree”.

However, the group’s view was that measures already agreed as part of the reforms package will in any case alleviate most of the problems. The first measure is to raise the threshold for applications. A local authority would be able to reject applications that did not meet a basic evidential test, effectively eliminating spurious or speculative applications. We are proposing to apply this retrospectively, as agreed by the stakeholder working group, by means of the transitional regulations provided for in Clause 27(7), so it would apply to any existing applications that have not yet resulted in an order.

The second enables newly discovered rights of way to be diverted and/or reduced in width before being recorded. This would be by agreement between the local authority and the landowner, with no scope for the agreement to be thwarted by objections. It is possible that this could also be applied retrospectively through the transitional regulations, thus reducing the overall administrative and cost burden of the procedures for recording rights of way.

Taking each of the proposals in my noble friend’s amendment in turn, the proposition to introduce a time limit on applications for an order to modify the definitive map is not as straightforward as it may appear. While it is possible to envisage such a measure for applications that are based solely on evidence of recent use, most rights of way applications are concerned with recording a right of way for which there will be both user evidence and historical documentary evidence, which may not come to light until many years after a landowner makes a statutory declaration under Section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I support my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s very comprehensive outline of the purpose of this amendment and I, too, express my regrets to the Committee that I was not able to be present at Second Reading. There is, of course, an element of farce, were this not a really serious matter, in that the precedent is claimed by the off-roaders that these green lanes in the past were open to horse-drawn vehicles. I find it very regrettable that some of the national park authorities, which of all bodies should be the basic guardians of this beautiful and threatened environment for which they are responsible, have not been universally helpful. There has been a wide disparity of co-operation across the local authorities. My noble friend indicated the difficulties that they face. There has certainly been a multiplicity of police and local authorities. It is interesting that one of the success stories is the Ridgeway where there is only one police authority, Thames Valley. In the past, there has been a knight in shining armour on that police authority—my noble friend himself.

The Minister has gone as far as he can in flashing exhibits to this Committee, but I know that he has received pictures of the appalling damage that is done on these green lanes. He made the point about traffic regulation orders, and a lot of authorities are very wary of instituting those for the reasons that he gave: the huge potential cost of defending against challenges.

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the question of disabled access. There have been unfortunate cases where confrontations between groups of learning disabled people and motorcycles or 4x4s have turned violent. We have to remember that the 4x4 and motorcycle groups are very powerful and persuasive, and they do not always have the restraining and responsible influence of the Auto-Cycle Union, to which my noble friend Lord Jopling has referred. I support the working group. The Government’s apparent policy of reconvening these stakeholder groups, which have hitherto failed to reach agreement, is not helpful.

This is an opportunity that will not occur again. I have a feeling that this has been kicked into the long grass—possibly an unfortunate reference in this context, as the green lanes could probably do with a little more of that. However, this opportunity will not occur again for many years to come. It is a simple amendment to rectify unintended gaps in past legislation and I strongly hope that the Minister will give it some consideration.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the problems arising from recreational motor vehicles—4x4s and motorbikes—using green lanes, unsealed tracks and other classified county roads have become very serious. For today’s Committee I have received a large postbag of submissions highlighting the disruption to quiet enjoyment of the countryside, and indeed the destruction of the pathway that precludes any other use. The Green Lanes Protection Group, made up of some 20 organisations ranging all the way from the Lake District in Yorkshire through North Wales and the Brecon Beacons to Somerset and the South Downs, has provided evidential photographs of the damage, and this is supported by many green lane alliances and concerned individuals.

This is becoming a serious, pressing matter to sort out. We recognise this and, in expressing sympathy, urge the Government to commit to a way forward. However, I hesitate to prescribe how the Minister should approach this, as the amendment does when it says, for example, that within one year of the Bill’s enactment the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report that the amendment calls for.

Perhaps the Minister could say which body, and which process, might be the best way to respond. Would it be once again a stakeholder working group or a sub-committee of wider interest groups that could make recommendations? Legal changes introduced by the NERC Act 2006 have improved the situation by limiting claims for the recognition of additional BOATs and by giving traffic regulation order powers to national park authorities. In places, though, particularly in some national parks, the problems remain extensive and further legislation is most likely to be necessary, along with better enforcement. Any debates on this issue that arise in the context of the Deregulation Bill will be important in paving the way for future legislation.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious and partly ideological debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, particularly inside national parks, my noble friend’s proposal seeks to place a duty on the Government to assess the burdens and costs caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on unsealed rights of way. Presupposing that the review would conclude that motor vehicle use gives rise to a burden and cost, the clause would give powers to alleviate these but would not seek any assessment of any possible benefits, or seek to weight burdens and cost against such potential benefits.

I have to say that I have considerable sympathy with the genuine concerns of my noble friend and others about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, I think that my noble friend is right to raise it today. Furthermore, I agree that this issue needs to be tackled and some means of resolution to it found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill said as much, but recognised that this Bill was not the right mechanism for doing it.

The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is a complex, emotive and contentious one where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. Research conducted on byways open to all traffic—admittedly, some years ago in 2005, although I am not aware of there being a significant change—found that although there are some acute cases of damage by recreational motor vehicle use in hot-spot areas, some of which my noble friend and I discussed earlier today, there was no evidence of widespread damage to the byway network from motor vehicles. The research found that 85% of byways open to all traffic in England carried either light traffic, at an average of 0.6 motor vehicles per day, or moderate traffic, at an average of 5.0 motor vehicles per day. Not all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is caused by the recreational use of motor vehicles. The research found that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access and just 38% is due to recreation. In addition, it found that 70% of byways were without any drainage. Much of the damage is due to a combination of farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance.

I must also say that there is good evidence that the use of unsealed roads during organised motoring events, such as hill climbs, puts significant amounts of money into rural economies. There are about 150 hill climb events around the country every year, with over 12,000 participants. The motorcycle club trials in the south-west alone are estimated to bring about £120,000 to the local economy. Some groups of motor vehicle users engage in volunteer activities to repair and maintain unsealed tracks, which I think is something that we would all want to encourage.

It is our contention that the most appropriate way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model and, in answer to my noble friend Lady Parminter, such a group will be established as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill. Despite my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s scepticism, I point out that the stakeholder working group approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the consensus in the face of diametrically opposing positions over the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in the Bill form the major part. This has resulted in agreement being arrived at through discussion and negotiation.